Conference/Tweets/Presentations/News, page-705

There appears to be a lot of conflating going on. Opinions masquerading as facts and facts being interpreted to suit opinion. I guess this is our version of Alternate Facts?

If I recall correctly, I believe the supposed 6 month lag (later revised to 6-9 months) pertained to the channel on-boarding process. Hence that lag time between signing a reseller and starting to see initial sales from that channel. It would appear that in many cases it is much longer than that (eg IM) and in some cases, less than that ( eg Rizon, Dicker).

This is quite different to the cash-flow lag between installation and receipt of payment. Not sure how long this would be, but (assuming 30 day EOM terms), it could be as short as 60 days to get a full months revenue paid (in cash), and as long as 90 days if via a channel middleman.

But none of this matters for the purpose of revenue recognition. Revenue is recognized (and reported as such) for the month in which it occurred. So if they install and activate an Ohm at the beginning of December, then they will recognize and report all the Revenue it earns in December, as December revenue. Despite the reality that they may not invoice it till early January and it’s payment is not due till 31st January if paid on time. Longer of course if their is a middleman in the billing cycle.

Our ability to discern the drivers of revenue (ie Ohm, Cloud, Data and soon LiFX) and the drivers of cash-flow ( ie relative terms of trade) is driven almost entirely by the level of transparency afforded by management reporting to shareholders.  I accept that there are potentially adverse consequences from being an open book. However, there are also potentially adverse consequences from being too opaque and seemingly evasive. Perhaps we are experiencing that now. Time for DM to find the right balance.

All IMO.  GLTA.